Navigating Connections and Disconnections: The (Re)making of Russian Exiled Journalism in the Digital Age

Rodina and Dovbysh study how Russian journalists who left the country after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 rebuild their careers in exile. The introduction sets the context: wartime censorship, with penalties of up to 15 years in prison for spreading “unreliable information”, pushed more than a thousand journalists to leave. By September 2024, at least 66 independent Russian outlets were operating from abroad. The authors argue that these journalists face a tension beyond the usual challenges of migration. As new immigrants they are expected to settle into their host countries, while their profession requires close ties to a homeland they cannot return to.

Migration research suggests that migrants gradually weaken their home ties as they invest in local networks. The authors argue that exiled journalists show the opposite pattern, because their income, legal status and professional authority depend on continued engagement with Russia. Their inability to return, for political rather than financial reasons, makes staying connected even more demanding, leaving fewer resources for integration. Drawing on literature about exiled journalism, they propose understanding exiled journalism as a “constellation of connections and disconnections” with both home and host countries, shaped by journalists’ personal (migrant) and professional identities. They also stress what is specific to the Russian case: the long tradition of political emigration, and the moral and legal complications of belonging to an aggressor state.

The study uses a social constructionist perspective. Between August and November 2023, the authors conducted 37 semi-structured interviews with editors, journalists and other media professionals (16 men, 21 women) in Vilnius, Riga, Prague, Berlin and Tbilisi, recruited through existing contacts and snowball sampling. Interviews were analyzed through inductive open coding. Fieldwork notes, digital ethnography (X, Facebook, Telegram) and attendance at events for exiled media professionals supplemented the interviews.

Journalists describe the loss of physical presence as painful and fear losing the “feeling of Russia”, especially the ability to judge the tone of their texts. Several worry about an increasingly “apocalyptic” register in exile media that does not match life on the ground and may push readers inside Russia away. To keep “the touch”, they stay in constant contact with people in Russia, follow large numbers of Telegram channels, use Google Maps street view and dash-cam videos, and ask colleagues and friends in Russia to check in on the tone and relevance of their pieces. They also work harder, doing more fact-checking and phone calls, and increasingly rely on data journalism because many experts in Russia refuse to speak to exiled media. Their professional identity remains tied to being Russian journalists, and almost none identify with European or global journalism.

In the host countries, journalists say thatintegration into local professional communities is weak or absent. Journalists report isolation, an emotional contrast between life in Europe and the repression they cover, skepticism about learning local languages, and a nomadic mindset fed by visa uncertainty and the sense that their host country is not a final stop. Because they are citizens of an aggressor state, many feel they have no right to complain about discrimination and self-censor around locals, which deepens their isolation. In response, they build “alternative networks”: group chats and support among fellow Russian exiles, which are more horizontal than the hierarchies of Moscow media, and ties with exiled journalists from other authoritarian contexts.

The authors argue that the pressure to stay connected to Russia disrupts the usual migrant trajectory of growing embeddedness in the host society. Being a Russian journalist becomes a symbolic shelter that preserves professional status and identity but complicates integration. They suggest the findings can inform policies and organizational support for exiled media, and propose future research on longitudinal change, comparisons with other authoritarian contexts, the role of digital platforms, and legal and institutional barriers in host countries.